Re: Long Live the Incandescent!

[windcrest <passport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 6, 6:33=A0am, nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs...
>
> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had co=
me
> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure u=
sed
> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light...
>
> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>
> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Looks good, I especially like the low parts count to make them.  I
hope someone combines the reflective coating technique with the laser-
etched filament technique to possibly obtain even greater
efficiencies.  I never liked throwing out a ballast and all those
other parts with a CFL.  I still contend that the supply chain needed
to make a CFL (resistors, transistors, capacitors, coils, mercury,
phosphor, gas handling, etc) outweigh a simple bulb with only 5 low-
tech parts. If you add up the total cost of manufacturing and mining
and delivering the resources for all those individual parts then dump
them all into landfills, I think the "true cost" of CFL goes way up.
But the lobbyists conveniently leave out the cost of logistics and
deep supplier costs associated with all the parts needed to make a
CFL.